Infamous video 'sniper' denies shooting at Red Shirts

[cheeryble]

I agree though that in a n"normal" society firing at a protester about to throw a Molotov would be justifiable if it was a shot to wing him.

.

Winging shots are not taken and in any case limb shots from rifles like this can be very deadly.

[BlackJack]

i dont know how they can be referred to as protestors

[HUAHIN62]

First time in history that a sniper fires blank rounds in a combat situation. But its easy to solve the problem bring in your weapon for a ballistic test to see if any of the dead have one of your blank rounds in them.

[kirk0233]

How will any of this ever be resolved? The flimsiest of lies are accepted without challenge by the public. Not sure if PTT, Democrats, military and police think the average Thai is stupid so they don’t bother to invent better lies or everyone who is Thai lies to save face and the rest of their body and everyone knows that an explanation for an action is just a formality that no one expects to be the truthful.

[hellodolly]

Not sure what the big deal is. You pick up arms and fire them at people and you are going to get shot at. Happens all the time. Why are people trying to prosecute the people who stopped them and worship the fellow who paid him to pick up arms and lay siege to government property and try to kill people?

Makes no sense to me. Of course I did not go to the red shirt school to learn what democracy was and recieve a gun on graduation so I could practice democracy.

One just has to shake their head when they see this happen and the ones who win out and protect democracy or the semblance of it that they have turn out to be the persecuted ones. The red shirts opened the firing soldiers died have there being any charges of murder brought up against the perpetrators of the whole thing. How about the man who paid for it and urged them on?

[klubex99]

If you are throwing molotov cocktails at an army unit in any country or scenario, you are likely going to be shot. You are offering yourself into the 'rules of engagement'. So to be shot dead, you have no complaint. So really no need for the soldier to lie about live or dummy ammunition. Just tell the truth. He was throwing petrol bombs at us, so we shot his ass.

Perfectly acceptable.

[jacko45k]

You don't need a sniper scope to fire blank rounds neither do you take time to aim when firing blanks. If Firing at someone trowing Molotov cocktails that would be justifiable deadly force in my book.

Can't figure any reason to even fire them!

[slipperylobster]

Ok... when the military fires blank rounds with an M16, they use a "BFA" (blank firing attachment) on the flash suppressor. It is painted Red and has a turn key attached. This is to avoid injury from the ejection of whatever might be in the barrel. Possible eye injuries, etc. Also it is an indication to the person on the receiving end of the training that the rifle is in fact, not firing live rounds.

[mikemac]

I am 100% sure they were not firing blanks, they were firing live rounds. And if a redshirt scumbag terrorist threw a molotov cocktail at me I would hit him with a barrage of live rounds.

They were protected and very lucky to only suffer the number of casualties they did, (the sacrificial lambs were so stupid they did not even know orders had been given from overseas to "lose a few", to gain sympathy from the people)

In any other country they all would have been wiped out by the army and would now just be nasty memories.

[razer]

The United Nations is monitoring this and I don't think they will find the story believable or even plausible. The reputation of the Thai army and government is on the line with these trials though there has not been much media attention.

[yourauntbob]

I have read TV long enough to know that the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong. All the courts need to do is read the threads over the last few years and it will become completely clear to them that all actions was justified. The army did not shoot anyone...............but if they did it was because they were attacked first...................... and if they were not attacked first then it was because there was a threat........................ but if there was no threat then it was because the Reds were causing an inconvenience to the ruling average citizens.

[robertson468]

And in the absence of a blank firing attachment, why is he NOT re-cocking the weapon each time he fires? As already said, the use of deadly force against someone throwing molotov cocktails would appear to be justified if by so doing the thrower could kill or seriously injure another party. So, it would appear these soldiers have "shot themselves in the foot" with highly suspect evidence.

[mikemac]

I have read TV long enough to know that the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong. All the courts need to do is read the threads over the last few years and it will become completely clear to them that all actions was justified. The army did not shoot anyone...............but if they did it was because they were attacked first...................... and if they were not attacked first then it was because there was a threat........................ but if there was no threat then it was because the Reds were causing an inconvenience to the ruling average citizens.

If you have been reading TV that long you would know that most of the TV members would think you were a fruitcake.

Lucky you were not in charge of the government back in 2010, if so there would be nothing left of the city and the redshirts would still be there "inconveniencing the citizens".

[Curt1591]

I agree though that in a n"normal" society firing at a protester about to throw a Molotov would be justifiable if it was a shot to wing him.

.

Winging shots are not taken and in any case limb shots from rifles like this can be very deadly.

Wings hots are a concept dreamed up for movie heroes ...

I have read TV long enough to know that the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong. All the courts need to do is read the threads over the last few years and it will become completely clear to them that all actions was justified. The army did not shoot anyone...............but if they did it was because they were attacked first...................... and if they were not attacked first then it was because there was a threat........................ but if there was no threat then it was because the Reds were causing an inconvenience to the ruling average citizens.

If you have been reading TV that long you would know that most of the TV members would think you were a fruitcake.

Lucky you were not in charge of the government back in 2010, if so there would be nothing left of the city and the redshirts would still be there "inconveniencing the citizens".

Personally, I would wear that as a badge of honor!

I think I would have used water cannons, tear gas, and other, more traditional, methods of crowd control.

[klubex99]

I have read TV long enough to know that the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong. All the courts need to do is read the threads over the last few years and it will become completely clear to them that all actions was justified. The army did not shoot anyone...............but if they did it was because they were attacked first...................... and if they were not attacked first then it was because there was a threat........................ but if there was no threat then it was because the Reds were causing an inconvenience to the ruling average citizens.

If you have been reading TV that long you would know that most of the TV members would think you were a fruitcake.

Lucky you were not in charge of the government back in 2010, if so there would be nothing left of the city and the redshirts would still be there "inconveniencing the citizens".

Personally, I would wear that as a badge of honor!

I think I would have used water cannons, tear gas, and other, more traditional, methods of crowd control.

These were not normal crowds... these were illegal militia 'potentially' armed with stolen police weapons and 'definitely' armed with molotov cocktails.

[Timwin]

We were lucky it did not escalate to all out civil war. When I saw those various government buildings burning on TV in many cities after the crackdown, I thought this is it, Thais are going to war. I'd bet some last minute secret negotiations prevented just that.

[wolf5370]

Anyone who's fired live ammo compared with blanks know two things.

1. Blanks don't recoil like live ammo does. There's more than enough recoil to show live rounds.

2. A weapon firing blanks usually needs a blank firing adapter. There isn't enough gas to expel the round from the gun. The adapter is at the tip of the gun resulting in my pressure allowing the blank to be ejected after firing. I don't see this on this weapon. Yet the rounds were easily expelled.

A blank-firing adapter or blank-firing attachment (BFA), sometimes called a blank adapter or blank attachment, is a device used in conjunction with blank ammunition. Blank firing adapters are required for allowing blanks to cycle most automatic firearms. It can also be a safety feature designed so if a live round is mistakenly fired, most of the energy is spent smashing through the BFA reducing both the range and damage inflicted. A BFA may also divert the hot gases from a blank discharge out to the sides, reducing the risk of injury to the target of an aimed shot.^[1]

^{Why do people blatantly lie when it makes them look even dumber? The I didn't know or you saw it wrong is getting old really quick. Own your actions.!}

Yes, that was my first thought too on seeing the photos/video in the OP. That and the fact that there is no point using blanks from a second story FFP, unlikely anyone would see it, or put the sound to a potential sniper - flashbangs and smoke grenades would have been better as a deterrent (or better yet, water canon).

[khunken]

Personally, I would wear that as a badge of honor!

I think I would have used water cannons, tear gas, and other, more traditional, methods of crowd control.

So would I if I had a police force to use them. That's a large part of the problem.

The red-shirt supporting police did nothing except pretend to arrest some leaders at a 5-star hotel. When a government is forced to use the army, it's obvious that more deaths would occur unfortunately (e.g. Derry in N.I.). Plus there's no doubt that the army had to deal with some heavily armed militia-types.

I'm not defending the 'firing blanks' bit as it is just ridiculous.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the reply. Off topic posts and replies have also been removed.

[PhoenixRising]

I thought they were using 'rubber bullets.' Wasn't that the claim they made years ago? I saw all the damage done to the glass everywhere at the BTS Siam Sq. station. Must have been from strong rubber bullets with a pretty powerful blow to cause all that damage. One minute they say they used blanks and the next minute they say rubber bullets. Real consistent there! Why wouldn't they use real bullets when so many of their own soldiers were blown up, killed and seriously attacked by these rioters on a rampage?! If I were a sniper soldier, certainly wouldn't want to face them without having real bullets. You'd have to have a crazy death wish or something.

[hellodolly]

The United Nations is monitoring this and I don't think they will find the story believable or even plausible. The reputation of the Thai army and government is on the line with these trials though there has not been much media attention.

Well what you say is highly doubtful. I am sure that if they are watching these trials

they are shaking there heads at the Thai Government for even allowing the trials.

They are wondering why an honest government is not giving medals to the solders

who died keeping Thailand free from a horde of red shirted rabble the dregs of society.

When it was all over and the kindly government of the time cleaned them up fed them

and paid there way home for them with out even asking them to help clean up the

mess they made.

Upon arrival at home a cheer went up in all the bars business had returned home.

[hellodolly]

I have read TV long enough to know that the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong. All the courts need to do is read the threads over the last few years and it will become completely clear to them that all actions was justified. The army did not shoot anyone...............but if they did it was because they were attacked first...................... and if they were not attacked first then it was because there was a threat........................ but if there was no threat then it was because the Reds were causing an inconvenience to the ruling average citizens.

Well you have one of two choices watch some u tube or put on a tin foil hat.

[hellodolly]

We were lucky it did not escalate to all out civil war. When I saw those various government buildings burning on TV in many cities after the crackdown, I thought this is it, Thais are going to war. I'd bet some last minute secret negotiations prevented just that.

There was not a snowballs chance in hell that it could have amounted into all out civil war.

Thaksin is not that rich.

[chuang]

Full of bull and full of shits....

[MrSlatersParrot]

If one watches the video at the beginning of MSG Kacharat Niamrord firing his rifle and at the end you click on the video there is link to a further 50 minute video to download.

Clearly shown soldiers are using live rounds initially around Lumpini park but MSG Kacharat Niamrord sees fit to claim that he was not and he was taking aim and firing blanks.

Right.

Why not as state as many here claim that he was only doing his duty and defending himself and his colleagues from terrorists but he doesn't.

Afte all his colleagues fired 2500 sniper rounds and 120,000 ordinary rounds as well as shotgun shells and rubber bullets(maybe) and heavy machine gun bullets on the 10th April.

Anyone here watched the video of the heavy machine gun mounted on top of the APC firing towards the red shirts on April 10th?

Is it any wonder that paramedics and journalist ended up being shot?

Anything that moved was shot.

Where we were, standing at 300 meters distance from the protestors, the soldiers could shoot without fear from molotovs, stones, slingshots nor home made rockets.

[chrisinth]

I asked in an earlier post if anyone knew the RoE (Rules of Engagement) being used during the protest riots at the time of the shootings, and why we are seeing these pitiful excuses to cover the actions of the military, or rather cover the commands given on the day.

Although only loosely related, the attached is a copy of (the British) Army Code No. 70771, anybody serving in Northern Ireland would have known this as the "Yellow Card". This was a guideline for the British serviceman's Rules of Engagement. Even though this is a 1972 review, it has changed little since then and it, or similar, is prevalent to most armed forces worldwide today.

NI_RoE_Yellow Card_Reviewed 1972.pdf

Item 9 on page two is reference petrol bombs:

You may fire after due warning.............

9. Against a person throwing a petrol bomb if petrol bomb attacks continue in your area against troops and civilians or against property, if his action is likely to endanger life.

Of course, this means nothing if the RoE was deemed as different on the day.

[paz]

I think this story teaches a lot about the Thai way of running things and taking responsability.

A couple soldiers shoot and kill under superior's orders, but instead of their commanders, they are the ones under trial.

At the trial, instead of saying the truth, that they shoot just because they were ordered to, they come up with unbeliavable stories, as their action clearly do not fall into the category that would have benefitted from a confession and repent. For what we know, the Judges may even be sympathetic to them, and all the process is being done to satisfy the families of the victims with something that then won't end in anything. So, the command chan is never investigated, the lower in class bends backward to save his boss ass, nobody loose face, etc... etc..

Edited September 21, 2013 by paz

[macca3248]

I am not buying into the debate about right or wrong,,,,all I am saying is that the rifle was NOT fitted with a blank firing device,(BFA)

Soldiers obey orders,the buck stops at the top !!!!!!

[JAG]

I asked in an earlier post if anyone knew the RoE (Rules of Engagement) being used during the protest riots at the time of the shootings, and why we are seeing these pitiful excuses to cover the actions of the military, or rather cover the commands given on the day.

 

Although only loosely related, the attached is a copy of (the British) Army Code No. 70771, anybody serving in Northern Ireland would have known this as the "Yellow Card". This was a guideline for the British serviceman's Rules of Engagement. Even though this is a 1972 review, it has changed little since then and it, or similar, is prevalent to most armed forces worldwide today.

 

{style_image_url}/attachicon.gif NI_RoE_Yellow Card_Reviewed 1972.pdf

 

Item 9 on page two is reference petrol bombs:

 

You may fire after due warning.............

 

9. Against a person throwing a petrol bomb if petrol bomb attacks continue in your area against troops and civilians or against property, if his action is likely to endanger life.

 

Of course, this means nothing if the RoE was deemed as different on the day.

 

.

I suspect that the Yellow Card in use on that day contained instructions along the lines of: It is time to send a clear unambiguous signal to these people, that we ( those that hold the reigns of power ) are prepared to use all force necessary to keep that power.

Interesting that two Senior NCOs did the shooting, but then it would always be difficult to persuade conscripts to open fire on their own people. Unfortunately for these two SNCOs the wrong side went on to win the election, and they are being hung out to dry.

Incidentally, if a WO 1 was only driving the panzer - what rank was the commander!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[mikemac]

You may fire after due warning.............

9. Against a person throwing a petrol bomb if petrol bomb attacks continue in your area against troops and civilians or against property, if his action is likely to endanger life.

Does this mean you are allowed to fire on scumbags who are throwing fire bombs at you ? Fire bombs that could potentially set fire to you and kill you ?

I know I would, and I would not need someone to give me instructions to defend myself against a terrorist attack.